Excerpt: - - mehta has failed to comply with this mandatory requirement of law. 10. it has been noticed that a good number of cases and more often than not the rule regarding caveat is complied in non-compliance and obeyed in disobedience......application. then he never informs and intimates the petitioner or expected petitioner that he has filed caveat. the registry of the high court usually also treats the caveat as an ineffective paper on which no action is to be taken, although the rules warrant that as soon as an appeal. writ or petition is filed. the caveator should be informed and copies of the same should be given. the appellant or the petitioner even after knowing that the caveat has been filed never takes trouble to intimate the caveator of the filing and t0 give him the copies of the writ or appeal.11. all concerned should, therefore, be careful for compliance and implementation of this important, rule by which much of the avoidable litigationcan be avoided. 12. the application for vacation of the admission order.....

Judgment:ORDER

G.M. Lodha, J.

1. This is all about validity of a 'caveat'. Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 139 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules are as under:--

'(3) Where an appeal, petition or application is expected to be lodged or has been lodged but is pending admission, any person claiming a right to appear before the Court on the hearing of such appeal, petition or application may lodge a caveat in the matter thereof, and shall thereupon be entitled toreceive from the Registrar notice of the lodging of the appeal, petition or application or at the time of the lodging of the caveat, such appeal, petition or application has not vet been lodged. and if and when the appeal, petition or application has been lodged. to require the appellant, petitioner or applicant to serve him with copy of the appeal. petition or application and t0 furnish him at his own expense, with copies of any papers lodged by the appellant. petitioner or applicant, in support of his appeal, petition or application. The caveator shall forthwith after lodging his caveat, give notice thereof to the appellant, petitioner or applicant, as the case may be, if the appeal, petitioner application has been lodged.

(4) Where a caveat has been lodged as aforesaid, notice of the hearing of the appeal, petition or application shall be given to the cavea or, but a caveater shall not be entitled to costs of the appeal, petition or application unless the Court, otherwise orders.'

2. The caveat was filed en 16-10-81. According to Section 148A(5), C.P.C. relied upon by Mr. Mehta for the purpose of analogy, the caveat remains into force for 90 days only. Section 148A. C.P.C. reads as under:--

'148-A. (1) Where an application is expected to be made, or has been made. in a suit or proceeding instituted, or about to be instituted, in a Court, any person claiming a right to appear before the Court on the hearing of such application may lodge a caveat in respect thereof.

(2) Where a caveat has been lodged under Sub-section (1). the person by whom the caveat has been lodged (hereinafter referred to as the caveator shall serve a notice of the caveat by registered post acknowledgement due on the person by whom the application has been. or is expected to be made under Sub-section (1).

(3) Where after a caveat has been lodged under Sub-section (1). any application is filed in any suit or proceeding, the Court. shall serve a notice of the application on the caveator.

(4) Where a notice of any caveat has been served on the applicant, he shall forthwith furnish the caveator, at the caveator's expense, with a copy of the application made by him and also with copies of any paper or document which has been, or may be filed- by him in support of the application.

(5) Where a caveat has been Indeed under Sub-section (1) such caveat shall not remain in force after the expiry of ninety days from the date on which it was lodged unless the application referred to in Sub-section (1) has been made before the expiry of the said period.'

3. Mr. Calla's objection is that firstly no caveat can be entertained without passing of the impugned order, as would be evident from the prescribed form requiring the caveator to mention the date of judgment or order. Mr. Mehta has prayed that since this case has been admitted without notice and hearing of caveator, the order of admission should be recalled.

4. Since on the date of filing of the caveat the impugned order was not in existence, it was argued that the caveat was premature, Secondly, it has been submitted that in any case even if, as pointed out by Mr. Mehta. the analogy of Section 148-A is applied, then also the period expired, because more than 90 days have passed from the date of filing of the caveat and the date of filing of the writ petition.

5. I have given thoughtful consideration to the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The prescribed form of caveat is as under:--

'IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR ............. No. ...............198

V./

Application under Rule 159 of the Rajas-than High Court Rules for entering into caveat.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIPS:

Your Lordship's humble applicant wants to enter into caveat under Rule 159 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules and let nothing be done till the applicants are heard in the matter. The particulars of the appeal/revision which is likely to be filed are given below:--

The appeal may be filed by any of the following persons:--

1. ...............

2. ...............

3. ...............

That the appeal is likely to be filed against:--

1. ...............

2. ...............

3. ..............

That the judgment against which the Revision/Appeal is to be filed is from the Court of............ Dated............

That the Appeal/Revision which is to be filed will be...............

That Vakalatnama on behalf of Shri ............ is submitted herewith.

It is, therefore, humbly prayed that nothing be done in the case till the applicants are heard. HUMBLE PETITIONERJaipur Through his CounselDated. Advocate.'

6. I am of the opinion that in order to make the caveat effective, the analogy of provisions of Section 148A. C.P.C. can be applied as argued by Mr. Mehta. A caveat may be filed even before the date of pronouncement of judgment in an extreme case where no dates for orders or judgments are fixed and the order is of administrative nature. In other cases, as far as possible, caveats should be entertained after judgments are pronounced. The name of the Court or authority should also be mentioned.

7. The maximum limit of 90 days as prescribed in Sub-clause (5) of Section 148A. C.P.C. would apply, and if it is filed earlier, it must be renewed.

8. It is also necessary that the caveator should inform the person who is likely to file application or writ and such notice should be sent by registered post according to Rule 159 (3) of the High Court Rules read with Section 148A(2). C.P.C. Mr. Mehta has failed to comply with this mandatory requirement of law.

9. Admittedly, in the instant case. 90 days had expired. That being so, the caveat became non-existent in the eye of law.

10. It has been noticed that a good number of cases and more often than not the rule regarding caveat is complied in non-compliance and obeyed in disobedience. Firstly, the caveator never gives full particulars in the application. Then he never informs and intimates the petitioner or expected petitioner that he has filed caveat. The registry of the High Court usually also treats the caveat as an ineffective paper on which no action is to be taken, although the rules warrant that as soon as an appeal. writ or petition is filed. the caveator should be informed and copies of the same should be given. The appellant or the petitioner even after knowing that the caveat has been filed never takes trouble to intimate the caveator of the filing and t0 give him the copies of the writ or appeal.

11. All concerned should, therefore, be careful for compliance and implementation of this important, rule by which much of the avoidable litigationcan be avoided.

12. The application for vacation of the admission order is, therefore, dismissed.